Debates of April 11th, 2019

Bill C-92—Time Allocation Motion

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to hear more about this particular legislation, having just been through the one on indigenous languages at committee.

One of the things we found out at committee was that there was a lack of consultation. Although it was stated that it was long and lengthy, the more we heard from witnesses, the more we found that it was very, very short. That was one of the problems. For major organizations, yes, but when you got to the actual people who would be implementing it, no. As we found more and more challenges with the legislation, we had constitutional lawyers saying that you are just going to end up in court with this, because it was not clear, and it was done too quickly.

We met daily on that bill. It was rushed, and it was daily. Witnesses were limited in the sense of grassroots people and tribal organizations that wanted more input. They said that they were going to be left out of the legislation on indigenous languages, as it was going to the major organizations and not to them.

Again, going to committee is one thing, but I think you have rushed it too much, and there are going to be challenges with this legislation. You cannot fix it at committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind the member to address the questions to the Chair and not to the individual members.

The hon. Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important that people understand that it is communities. In all the gatherings on missing and murdered indigenous women during the pre-inquiry process, almost every family explained the harm the attachment to the child and family services industry had done to that family, both the victims and the perpetrators, in terms of abuse. This is something that has been so clear at rallies on the Hill, at the summit last January and the conferences that fed from that and then with the advisory group and during the co-development of the draft legislation and the drafting instructions that were shared. This is a very good outline of what was heard. It is enabling and not prescriptive, but it really will, I think, be able to stop the tragedy of these children being removed from their families.

I look forward to hearing what the witnesses have to say at committee. It is the reason that when the Minister of Indigenous Services tabled this legislation, he had the support of the first nations, Inuit and Métis.

[Kent Hehr, Liberal, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to applaud the minister for her tireless work and effort on this file and for her long-standing work with the indigenous peoples of this country.

I think it is important to note that this is just part of what the government has done. We moved forward on historic investments in indigenous education. We moved forward on ending boiled water advisories and moved forward on implementing the truth and reconciliation commission recommendations. The list goes on and on. However, there is no doubt that this country has been marred by indigenous children being taken away from their cultural identity and from their communities.

I know that this bill will go a long way in restoring an indigenous rights framework. Can you speak to how this would really impact indigenous rights and build upon what we are trying to do on a nation-to-nation relationship?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the members to address questions to the Chair. I could certainly speak to it, but I am sure the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations will be able to respond.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, that question puts this in the proper context of not only the Truth and Reconciliation Commission but the first five calls to action, which were about children.

When we think of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the articles say clearly not to forcibly remove children from their communities. It is really clear that we cannot move forward on reconciliation until these children are able to be raised proud of who they are and able to achieve their full potential in society.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to go back to the question I asked earlier. I think the move around jurisdiction and being very clear about jurisdiction is a good one.

The government has talked about it being a phased approach. Where a community has not taken over jurisdiction and the province is responsible, the technical adviser says this is going to be compelled on provincial authorities.

Given that the provincial authorities have constitutional issues around child protection, can the minister definitively say that this is compliant with the Constitution and the charter in terms of that advice?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, these are section 35 rights and it is about asserting jurisdiction, as these section 35 rights are being obstructed by article 88 in the Indian Act.

We are working with the provinces and territories at the trilateral tables to try to achieve a better outcome for these kids. We really are hoping that the acceleration of the child well-being laws in each of the nations will proceed. For over half of the Indian Act bands that we are dealing with in terms of self-determination, child and family services is a priority on their list. We look forward to being able to have them realize that vision for their communities.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1295

An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration from April 10 of the motion that Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that the budget is probably the most important instrument that the government can present every year. I am very disappointed that we were not able to hear the Minister of Finance give his speech. The following week, many of my constituents told me how much they deplored missing the opportunity to hear the speech. Therefore, I would like to clarify a few things for Canadians today and for the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

My presentation on the budget today touches on a number of themes. The first one, of course, is veterans, followed by seniors, youth, housing—which is extremely important—and black Canadians. I will also, of course, make reference to my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

With regard to veterans, we have made some big changes, and they are really important to note.

The first part is about transition. Transition has been a challenge for all governments. The objective is to make it as seamless as possible. We have expanded the coverage and support in the transition formula to non-injured veterans. Previously, it was only for injured veterans, but now it includes non-injured veterans. We have also established a guide that will help veterans to follow the process in their My VAC Account, which is extremely important. This is one piece.

We have also expanded education and training benefits, which is another important aspect. We have expanded this to included the reservists. This is important, because it is something veterans have been talking about.

We have also invested monies for the recognition and commemoration of Métis veterans. I am on the veterans affairs committee. I had the opportunity to go across Canada to speak to many Métis veterans who fought for our great country, which is extremely important.

Finally, I have advocated personally in the last couple of years to ensure that we have what some call a new survivor fund for veterans' families for when a veteran passes. I do not know if members are aware of this, but if a veteran marries after age 60 and passes, his family does not have access to a percentage of his pension or to benefits. This is something our government has put into the bill. It is really important and would be much appreciated by many of my colleagues.

Let us now talk about youth, the young people of Canada. What we brought forward for them in this budget is quite impressive.

Two years ago, we talked about the idea that they would not have to pay back their student loans until they made $25,000 a year or more. That was a big help, and young people have mentioned it several times to me.

Now we have also taken out the interest rate for the first six months so that they do not have to pay it for six months after they graduate, which is crucial. In addition, after six months, instead of having to pay prime plus 2.5%, they will pay prime.

I would like to note that I am sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

What is also very important for young people is the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. This provides an opportunity for young people to get into the housing market. It is quite impressive. When young people buy a house for $400,000 and they put 5% down, that is $20,000. However, there would be a shared equity investment for another 10%, which equals $40,000. Therefore, a house for which they would have had a mortgage of $380,000 only needs a mortgage of $340,000. What does that represent? That represents a savings of $228 per month for 25 years. That is very important.

We have made some great investments as well in the construction of new rental units. We will have 84,000 new units.

Let us talk about seniors. Between 2011 and 2016, my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook had the greatest increase in the number of seniors in Nova Scotia. It is extremely important that we do more to support our seniors. We have the new horizons program, which supports community-based projects. Seniors can submit an application for investment support for equipment, programs and transportation. There are all kinds of great opportunities around that.

One of the most important things that many seniors ask about is how can they keep more money in their pockets. Some seniors work part time; that is a good thing, because the economy needs more people in the workforce, but they may make $100 on the one hand but lose $100 on the other hand. Our government made some major changes to the GIS. Before now, there was 100% exemption on earnings up to $3,500; now that exemption would go up to $5,000. There is also a 50% exemption on the next $10,000. Seniors are seeing a $6,500 differential. They will get to keep more money in their pockets, and that is what it is all about.

Let us talk about health. Health is the number one priority in Nova Scotia. Up to 26% of Nova Scotians have underlined clearly that health is their first and most important priority. In the health accord, our government not only increased funding but added funding for mental health and home care, which allows seniors to remain longer in their homes if that is what they wish to do. That is very important.

As well, we are building the foundation for a national pharmacare program. We have created a Canadian drug agency that will be responsible for negotiating better prices for drugs in all provinces and territories. This should save up to $3 billion a year, which is quite impressive.

We have a national strategy for rare diseases. Many Canadians face health challenges with rare diseases, and the cost is extremely high. We are going to increase coverage to support those individuals and their families in paying for their extremely expensive drugs.

Our government is investing some money into a national strategy for dementia. It is not that the disease is getting worse, but rather that more Canadians are living longer and are therefore facing challenges, including dementia challenges.

The last piece is about Ready, Willing and Able, an organization in Nova Scotia that supports individuals with intellectual disabilities or autism spectrum disorder. It is looking to get into partnership co-op programs. These individuals do some great work and contribute to the economy, which is important. Companies like Air Canada, Costco and Shoppers Drug Mart hire many of these individuals.

I have already talked about housing, but let me mention that for first-time homebuyers there is an increase in the permitted RRSP withdrawal from $25,000 to $35,000. That is very important.

We have invested in the construction of rental units. With the Speaker of the Nova Scotia legislature, Kevin Murphy—who is a former student of mine—I announced 13 units a couple of weeks ago in Porters Lake, Nova Scotia. I am waiting for many more announcements to be made in Nova Scotia and in my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

To conclude, our government has invested in black Canadians. I have in my riding the biggest indigenous black community in Canada. I also have in my riding the biggest black cultural centre in Canada. We are leaders. We have received investments and capital assistance for various projects and we also have community-based projects that will come forward on anti-racism.

Budget 2019 is a great budget. I am very proud of it, and the community of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, my province of Nova Scotia and in fact all of Canada will benefit from it.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member raised the issue of a shared equity position that the Government of Canada is proposing CMHC would have for first-time homebuyers. However, he neglected to mention that it is based on income. The maximum someone could receive under the program is four times their income, and in the member's own riding, the median income is just under $30,000. That is not a lot for someone to be able to borrow on and to move forward.

Does he not believe that in areas like his across the country, this amount would not be enough to even support someone, let alone if they actually want to be in partnership with the government and have it as a stakeholder in their home?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and his question. I am happy to tell him that this is a program that did not exist in the previous 10 years. We have to start somewhere.

We are trying to help first-time homebuyers. Yes, it goes on the average, but keep mind that is still getting a piece of that pie. It will help people right across the country, based on income, and that 10% will still come down as a shared equity to help get that first home, which is crucial.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I spent three happy years in Nova Scotia. It is a beautiful province.

As I recall, the member mentioned that health care is a big priority for his constituents. Given that it is also a top priority not only in my constituency but across my province, I wonder if he could speak to the fact that his government chose not to introduce a national pharmacare program, despite the fact that over many decades, every commission has recommended to move now on pharmacare and that an all-party committee unanimously recommended introducing pharmacare now.

Why was that? It was because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done an analysis showing that it is the most cost-effective way to proceed in making sure that affordable pharmaceuticals are available to everyone.

I wonder if the member could speak to that fact. Is he not disappointed and will his constituents not be disappointed that his government chose not to introduce pharmacare, which would have made those medicines available to all of his constituents at an affordable rate?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, in my mind, pharmacare is a very important national strategy that we need to move forward on as soon as possible. Again, in the 10 years that the Conservative Party was in power, there was no talk about moving on that important agenda.

Stephen Frank, the president and CEO of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association said:

We’re grateful that the government is listening to what Canadians say they want for national pharmacare--an approach that covers everyone, but that doesn’t result in people losing the workplace benefits they currently have.

That is what they are saying on the ground, and it is very important that are supporting it.

However, we have a report that is going to come out in May or June, and I believe that this final report will be the final piece to get a full pharmacare program in Canada.